And some issues (ie. slavery, civil rights, marriage equality) only have one side of the issue that's right, and that's the side that believes in equality for all. On an issue like that, anyone who doesn't believe that everyone deserves the same civil rights and equal treatment under the law is just wrong, no matter what excuse they try to use. Plain and simple.

I agree there is one side to those issues. I think the point most Americans, Democratic or Republican, miss is that the issues just don't stop there. It's the underlying topics that usually get ignored once the masses claim success.

For example, slavery ended, but white supremacy and racism did not. Now, its almost impossible to get a white liberal to understand that there's still work to do on that front. The white Republican will at least admit to not caring. I am of course using the titles tongue in cheek, to show that the issues with either party can swing both ways.

One issue that hit close to home was transgender rights. Once gays got the right to marry, everyone through up their hands and screamed SUCCESS! But transgendered Americans still face and have always faced a more unique type of inequality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thehustleman

I'm not a liberal or a conservative, I'm intelligent.

I'm liberal on some subjects and conservative on others.

Both sides have some good points and both sides have some screwed up viewpoints.

Agreed 100% I would like to add to that the fact that many on both sides share opinions both good and bad. I've met far more Democratic atheists opposed to gay marriage than conservative Christians . . . . and I live in Maryland, a predominately blue state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tshrimp

I think most of them have been banned.

Also agreed. Or have been put in timeout so much that they just don't hang out in PSRI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulugu

You missed my point, which is simply that for any given population, about 20 percent can be depended on to be wrong about any given subject. The idea that it's endemic to either party is wrong and both of our political parties seem determined to suffer fools. If you think the Democrats have more, you're kidding yourself. And vice versa.

This sums up my opinion on the matter. Its not my nature to believe that someone automatically displays certain characteristics based on a social label. Just because you are atheist doesn't mean you are smart, just because you are Buddhist doesn't mean you have patience, and just because you are liberal doesn't mean you have the best interest of all people at heart.

__________________What do I have?, stuff that I actually use for work! Some old, some new, all effective.

This is too easy... The fact that you don't realize that there was a memo before 9/11 that said we were going to have planes flown into buildings, but that it was ignored, or that the FBI had been investigating suspicious people for taking flight lessons (that happened to be pilots on 9/11) is a sad, sad commentary on the state of our education in this country.

And the coup de grace: The 8/6/01 memo to Ms. Rice.

In other words, don't call me a liar if you don't know the facts. You just sound silly.

The PDB continues with the fact that Bin Laden wanted to attack LA international airport, he was recruiting muslim-American youth for terror attacks in the US, and he wanted to hijack a plane to fly "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Adb al-Rahman and other US-held extremists to safety.

Meanwhile, the FBI was seeing indications that preparations in the US for hijackings or other types of attacks were ongoing. Including surveillance by terrorists of federal buildings in NY.

The FBI conducted investigations into rumors that Bin Laden supporters were in the US planning attacks with explosives.

That's it! In 1998, Bin Laden was pissed off at the US for bombing him and wanted to "bring the fighting to America" in revenge. He may attack with explosives and attempt to spring extremists from custody. US citizens may be involved in the plots.

The PDB offered no specifics that didn't turn out to be flat-out wrong, just intentions and vague rumors. (It certainly didn't mention that Bin Laden was planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings!) Plus, Bin Laden didn't attack the WTC and Pentagon until THREE YEARS after making his threats!

In the event, no US citizens took part in the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC, LAX was not attacked, federal buildings were not attacked with explosives, and no attempt was made to free extremists.

No wonder Bush was unimpressed with the briefing! Bush's comment "All right. You've covered your ass, now." was far too mild. Mine would have been: "That's the best you can do?! You're fired!"

Easy, tiger. Don't be so sure of yourself. While Mcrain might be overstating the specifics, you've picked up on and cherry-picked the only briefing that was released to the 9/11 Commission. Others were held back:

Quote:

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Easy, tiger. Don't be so sure of yourself. While Mcrain might be overstating the specifics, you've picked up on and cherry-picked the only briefing that was released to the 9/11 Commission. Others were held back:

This fatally undermines the utterly absurd idea that 'Bush kept us safe'.

Not a single example in that quote suggested that Bush had explicit details about the upcoming attack.

The Clinton administration was also aware that al Qaeda was preparing attacks on the US (remember the first WTC bombing?). So why wasn't the country already on high alert when Bush became president?

Because it's impractical. You can't keep a free nation like ours on high terror alert for long (at least 3 years, given the PDB that said Osama wanted to attack the US) when there's no specific threat. Too many start poking fun at it and then disregarding the danger (remember comedians lampooning the alert colors after 9/11?).

Not a single example in that quote suggested that Bush had explicit details about the upcoming attack.

I didn't say there was. As far as I'm aware Al Qaeda didn't send the memo to the West Wing. However, it's fairly clear there were plenty of warnings, to the degree that figures within the CIA wanted to distance themselves from the mess they knew was coming and was clearly being ignored. To me, that sounds like rank incompetence on the administration's part. Not sure why you feel the need to spin it any other way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DUCKofD3ATH

The Clinton administration was also aware that al Qaeda was preparing attacks on the US (remember the first WTC bombing?). So why wasn't the country already on high alert when Bush became president?

Perhaps, if your reading comprehension is up to par, as the article states:

Quote:

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001.

Bill Clinton left office in late January of that year. I believe that's colloquially known as the 'winter'.

Clarke's role as a counter-terrorism advisor in the months and years prior to 9/11 would lead to the central role he played in deconstructing what went wrong in the years that followed. Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in Condoleezza Rice's public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo[8] from January 25, 2001, that Clarke had authored and sent to Rice. Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush administration.[9]

In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", Clarke wrote that when he first briefed Rice on Al-Qaeda, in a January 2001 meeting, "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." He also stated that Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking 'urgently' for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies.[10]

At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."[10]

Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire".[10]

At a July 5, 2001, White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." Donald Kerrick, a three-star general who was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration and stayed on into the Bush administration, wrote Hadley a classified two-page memo stating that the NSA needed to "pay attention to Al-Qaida and counterterrorism" and that the U.S. would be "struck again."

I keep holding out hope that our resident conservatives will come back and respond to the total and complete destruction of their claims, but they never do. It's such a shame. Who doesn't enjoy a good debate, other than the side without facts to back up their wild assertions?

Just because you are unwilling to admit that there were lots of warnings, doesn't mean it looks like a lie. It just looks like you are uninformed.

Quote:

In fact, intelligence analysts had been warning for some time that terrorists could hijack planes. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” The Clinton administration responded by convening its top counterterrorism experts and heightening security at airports around the nation.

On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” The memo warned:

Quote:

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration “had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon,” and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking.

In response to that threat warning, the Bush administration did nothing. The 9/11 Commission reports, “We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.” The truth....

I didn't say there was. As far as I'm aware Al Qaeda didn't send the memo to the West Wing. However, it's fairly clear there were plenty of warnings, to the degree that figures within the CIA wanted to distance themselves from the mess they knew was coming and was clearly being ignored. To me, that sounds like rank incompetence on the administration's part. Not sure why you feel the need to spin it any other way.

Perhaps, if your reading comprehension is up to par, as the article states:

Bill Clinton left office in late January of that year. I believe that's colloquially known as the 'winter'.

Ah yes, my young friend. But you misunderstand my meaning. Thanks to Clinton and Gorelick's wall, we were vulnerable to al Qaeda's infiltration, even though we had already been attacked by them several times on Clinton's watch.

“In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall. When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists. At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this – someday someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems.'’’

[INDENT]“In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

Hmmm... who was in office in the days before September 11? Clearly, if there were problems with an area of security that the GWB administration was paying attention to would have been fixed. Right? Either that, or as all the other evidence indicates, the GWB administration massively and negligently dropped the ball.

Hmmm... who was in office in the days before September 11? Clearly, if there were problems with an area of security that the GWB administration was paying attention to would have been fixed. Right? Either that, or as all the other evidence indicates, the GWB administration massively and negligently dropped the ball.

You forgot to quote this:

But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists. At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this – someday someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems.'’’

For whatever reasons, Clinton and Gorelick strengthened FISA rules to the extent that law enforcement and intelligence agencies couldn't protect America from terrorists.

Given unknown unknowns resulting from the wall, nobody in the Bush administration could know that things were rapidly coming to a head.

As for your "recollection", save it. Either prove it with a source or quit making stuff up. I've already shown you lied or displayed egregious ignorance with your assertion that "Most, if not all, Democrats know that GWB was given a briefing that Al Queda intended to fly aircraft into buildings before 9/11."

But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists. At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this – someday someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems.'’’

For whatever reasons, Clinton and Gorelick strengthened FISA rules to the extent that law enforcement and intelligence agencies couldn't protect America from terrorists.

Given unknown unknowns resulting from the wall, nobody in the Bush administration could know that things were rapidly coming to a head.

As for your "recollection", save it. Either prove it with a source or quit making stuff up. I've already shown you lied or displayed egregious ignorance with your assertion that "Most, if not all, Democrats know that GWB was given a briefing that Al Queda intended to fly aircraft into buildings before 9/11."

You keep talking about a "wall" as though it was something real. What wall are you talking about, because I'm not aware of any changes to the laws that occurred during that time that would have made protecting the American publica harder. Any regulation changes could have been changed if needed by an administration that was being given warning about terrorist activity. So, you are talking about a wall, please, give us a cite.

(edit) FYI, your using the testimony of John Asscroft as though it has more worth than dirt. He couldn't even beat a dead man he was so untrustworthy.

(edit2) Not to mention that everything he was saying sounded like a man trying to blame someone else for his mistake.

You keep talking about a "wall" as though it was something real. What wall are you talking about, because I'm not aware of any changes to the laws that occurred during that time that would have made protecting the American publica harder. Any regulation changes could have been changed if needed by an administration that was being given warning about terrorist activity. So, you are talking about a wall, please, give us a cite.

(edit) FYI, your using the testimony of John Asscroft as though it has more worth than dirt. He couldn't even beat a dead man he was so untrustworthy.

Given your record of dishonest or ignorant claims that I've debunked, your opinion on Ashcroft has no weight whatsoever. (Still waiting for proof that Bush was briefed on al Qaeda intentions to use aircraft as missiles on 9/11).

You didn't read the memo did you? The FBI criminal division was kept from counterterrorism investigations in order to prevent criminal investigations from being tainted by evidence that is inadmissable. However, the counterterrorism information was still being gathered and there were still authorized contacts with the FBI (just not the criminal division).

I don't think this says what you, or even Ashcroft, thinks it does. This is a memo designed to prevent active criminal cases from being damaged, not a memo that prevents intelligence gathering.

Quote:

Given your record of dishonest or ignorant claims that I've debunked, your opinion on Ashcroft has no weight whatsoever.

This is too easy... The fact that you don't realize that there was a memo before 9/11 that said we were going to have planes flown into buildings, but that it was ignored, or that the FBI had been investigating suspicious people for taking flight lessons (that happened to be pilots on 9/11) is a sad, sad commentary on the state of our education in this country.

And the coup de grace: The 8/6/01 memo to Ms. Rice.

In other words, don't call me a liar if you don't know the facts. You just sound silly.

The PDB continues with the fact that Bin Laden wanted to attack LA international airport, he was recruiting muslim-American youth for terror attacks in the US, and he wanted to hijack a plane to fly "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Adb al-Rahman and other US-held extremists to safety.

Meanwhile, the FBI was seeing indications that preparations in the US for hijackings or other types of attacks were ongoing. Including surveillance by terrorists of federal buildings in NY.

The FBI conducted investigations into rumors that Bin Laden supporters were in the US planning attacks with explosives.

That's it! In 1998, Bin Laden was pissed off at the US for bombing him and wanted to "bring the fighting to America" in revenge. He may attack with explosives and attempt to spring extremists from custody. US citizens may be involved in the plots.

The PDB offered no specifics that didn't turn out to be flat-out wrong, just intentions and vague rumors. (It certainly didn't mention that Bin Laden was planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings!) Plus, Bin Laden didn't attack the WTC and Pentagon until THREE YEARS after making his threats!

In the event, no US citizens took part in the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC, LAX was not attacked, federal buildings were not attacked with explosives, and no attempt was made to free extremists.

No wonder Bush was unimpressed with the briefing! Bush's comment "All right. You've covered your ass, now." was far too mild. Mine would have been: "That's the best you can do?! You're fired!"

The PDB continues with the fact that Bin Laden wanted to attack LA international airport, he was recruiting muslim-American youth for terror attacks in the US, and he wanted to hijack a plane to fly "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Adb al-Rahman and other US-held extremists to safety.

Meanwhile, the FBI was seeing indications that preparations in the US for hijackings or other types of attacks were ongoing. Including surveillance by terrorists of federal buildings in NY.

The FBI conducted investigations into rumors that Bin Laden supporters were in the US planning attacks with explosives.

That's it! In 1998, Bin Laden was pissed off at the US for bombing him and wanted to "bring the fighting to America" in revenge. He may attack with explosives and attempt to spring extremists from custody. US citizens may be involved in the plots.

The PDB offered no specifics that didn't turn out to be flat-out wrong, just intentions and vague rumors. (It certainly didn't mention that Bin Laden was planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings!) Plus, Bin Laden didn't attack the WTC and Pentagon until THREE YEARS after making his threats!

In the event, no US citizens took part in the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC, LAX was not attacked, federal buildings were not attacked with explosives, and no attempt was made to free extremists.

No wonder Bush was unimpressed with the briefing! Bush's comment "All right. You've covered your ass, now." was far too mild. Mine would have been: "That's the best you can do?! You're fired!"

In other words, John Asscroft was lying when he blamed their failures to put two and two together on a wall. It wasn't anyone's fault, right?

(edit) By the way, that's just one memo that was declassified. The GWB administration refused to disclose the far more incriminating memos.